Thursday, March 24, 2011

Screechin'Shirley's Pattern of Practice

Prosser won't repeat his gaffe (which is to say, he won't again say out loud what he really thinks), but you can read for yourself why Abrahamson is, in fact, exactly what he said.

...Twelve years ago, the court had a different make-up but Shirley Abrahamson was still the problem. Back in 1999, four justices tried to curb Abrahamson's power. They included Bill Bablitch, recently deceased, Patrick Crooks, Don Steinmetz, and Jon Wilcox. Bablitch, a former Democratic state senator, complained that Abrahamson, even then the chief justice, never let the court know what she was up to.

...Way back in the mid-1980s, the Milwaukee Journal quoted an unnamed justice as saying Abrahamson gave colleagues the finger in conference and ridiculed their opinions in her dissents. Long before Abrahamson was trading barbs with Prosser and Roggensack, she was locked in a public battle with Justice Roland B. Day. There has been consistent criticism of her management style, Nichols reported.

One lawyer who has worked in the court calls her style "toxic" and compared dealing with her to chewing tinfoil. In short, Abrahamson may be brilliant, but her critics say she doesn't countenance other perspectives or much care about consensus or conciliation.

Clearly, there's a pattern of practice which Screechin'Shirley follows. So we can update the old joke:

Q. What's the difference between Shirley Abrahamson and the Panama Canal?

A. One of them is a busy ditch.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Undoubtedly, she rattled the cages of the old boys club. And I'm sure the boyzzz retaliated in kind because they disliked the fact that on occassion they got their legal clocks cleaned.

Regardless of whether or not she exhibited rude behavior and has displayed a rough management style with her judicial peers, I thought good Christians such as yourself would vow not to stoop to her level. Guess not.

Besides, talk about toxic and a pattern of practice, Dad29. You enable vile anony posters to advocate sodomy--which runs counter to the tenets of the church--against your blogging rivals.

Deekaman said...

Looks like Dad has two anonymous trolls. One, a self-righteous Lefty and the other a disgusting sexually perverted hater.

One blog, two moral lessons. And the added value of political commentary.

Thanks, Dad.

Dad29 said...

Actually, Deek, I think they're one and the same.

Since nobody--least of all Capper--is concerned about the troll(s), neither am I.

The exhibition of 7th-grade personas is worth keeping up for all the world to see.

Anonymous said...

Troll I am not. A troll is a hit and run poster. I post here on a semi-regular basis. It keeps me young, and entertained.

Dad29 should be concerned about his soul. Keep convincing yourself that you're not guilty in this matter, it makes for great TV. And you are right about 7th grade personas. I refer to your juvenile attempt at humor at the end of your entry.

And you claim you're the adult by calling independent minded women a female dog? Yes, entertaining indeed.

Talking about self-righteous behavior, Deekaman, look in the mirror!

Deekaman said...

Hmmm...accusations with no evidence. Very good, anon. It will serve you well in your Leftist revolution when you scream, "J'accuse". Oh, wait. We are moving to the Right, not the Left. Too bad.

Act like a bitch,get called one. Independent-minded, my dying ass. She is completely in the thrall of the Leftist/Progressive establishment.

Too bad about your cognitive dissonance, but keep trying. The theft of the property mind, body and especially soul of others by the Left will be the undoing of the Progressive movement. People don't like to be told how to live their lives by people who don't live that way themselves.

Say what you like, you aren't evil....just wrong.

diana said...

A woman can be independent minded AND civil. Giving colleagues the finger, ridiculing them, and generally being toxic is bitchery, whether done by male or female. A person may display "brilliance" or smarts, but that doesn't mean wisdom. A person who cannot even pretend general good manners is unprofessional at best and disgusting at worst.

I think Voltaire said this, but I am not sure: Tend your own garden.
Worrying aloud in the comments box about Dad29's soul is very unchristian and shows spiritual immaturity. You might want to read up on the rules of fraternal correction as a fyi. And Miss Manners.

neomom said...

Shirley's outbursts make her both a very poor manager and unprofessional.

Anonymous said...

"People don't like to be told how to live their lives by people who don't live that way themselves."

I stand corrected, you would never impose your will upon others.


"Worrying aloud in the comments box about Dad29's soul is very unchristian and shows spiritual immaturity."

You're kidding, right? Christians openly show concern about whether the behavior of other Christians will draw the wrath of God, and, ultimately, the loss of their soul. Apparently my Sunday School teachers, my priest, and my Christian friends are "spiritually immature" when they verbalized in public my inappropriate conduct.

Do you support Dad29's "manners" when he openly calls someone a bitch based on stories from men who generally opposed her jurisprudence? Does he even personally know Justice Abrahamson to make such a statement? Do you, Diana?

Do you support Dad29's refusal to call out for the raping and death of another human being?

Lord knows I'm not perfect, but at least I can admit to myself and my priest when I commit sin and work to correct the error of my ways.

May God have mercy on your soul, Diana.

Anonymous said...

I did read the rules for "fraternal correction". I do thank you, Diana, for the reminder. It would appear that I am safe, but I will ask my priest on Sunday.


"Of course the reproof is to be administered privately, i.e. directly to the delinquent and not in the presence of others. This is plainly the method appointed by Christ in the words just cited and only as a remedy for obduracy is any other contemplated by Him.

"Still there are occasions upon which one might lawfully proceed in a different way. For instance:

when the offence is a public one; [YES]

when it makes for the prejudice of a third party or perhaps even the entire community; [YES]

when it can only be condignly dealt with by the authority of a superior paternally exercised; [NOT APPLICABLE]

when a public rebuke is necessary to preclude scandal: witness the withstanding of Peter by Paul mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians (2:11-14);
[YES]

when the offender has already in advance relinquished whatever right he possessed to have his good name safeguarded, as is the custom in some religious bodies. [NOT APPLICABLE]

diana said...

RE:when it makes for the prejudice of a third party or perhaps even the entire community; [YES]


when a public rebuke is necessary to preclude scandal: witness the withstanding of Peter by Paul mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians (2:11-14);
[YES]


Not sure those apply here, but they do apply towards the behavior of Ms. Abrahamson. Ms Abrahamson should conduct herself better if she wishes to exclude herself from name-calling. I think she is behaving in a scandalous way. If I ran around the religious people I know flipping them off and insulting them I am sure THEY would be the ones scandalized. Someone has to stop that behavior, and sometimes that requires an unkind characterization.

Prosser publicly rebuked a nasty bully of a woman. Her behavior is not feminism. It is not appropriate for her to "clean their legal clocks" in this insulting manner. She was publicly rebuked by a co-worker. If she was wise, she would she how this behavior insults the whole legal system. I highly doubt gentleness would stop Ms. Abrahamson, but maybe strong words and ridicule will. I hope she learns from this episode--how it feels to be belittled and bullied.

Diana said...

RE:when the offence is a public one; [YES]

when it makes for the prejudice of a third party or perhaps even the entire community; [YES]

Now apply this to Ms. Abrahamson's behavior. If she is going to behave in such a manner then she invites these comments. Her bullying is appalling and disgusting and goes far beyond cleaning out "legal clocks" of "the boyzzzz." Sometimes the only way to deal with a bully is to bully right back. I speak from years of experience with nasty family members...trying to be gentle, trying find ways to get along, and then finally realizing a person needs to hear how her nasty behavior is evil and inappropriate.

Is it Dad29's supposed lack of charity in allowing people to speak their minds (when I blogged I allowed people to speak freely, while other bloggers I respected didn't want any hint of a lack of charity) or is a way to try to make a case of hypocrisy over Dad's Christianity and conservatism? Are you a liberal who doesn't follow Church tenets yourself? Again, I would worry more about following Church teachings more faithfully myself instead of attempting to point out another's supposed failings by allowing certain comments on their blog. It makes it appear as though you are bothered deeply by your lack of obedience by trying to point out another's failures, which I don't see here in Dad's case. But then again, I am guessing your situation, (and please know if it is true I don't condemn you as we are all working things out)and hope this is not the case, and that I am wrong.

Eddie Hassle said...

Hey, Wally, what should I do?

Why don't ya kill 'er, Beaver?

Anonymous said...

Eddie--"Very unchristian and shows spiritual immaturity".

Eddie Hassle said...

Sorry, Mom.

John Foust said...

Well, actually... there are a number of people who post here anonymously, including the host blogger.

One of the reasons people often give for posting anonymously is that they don't want to be judged by people who know them by their real name. I can see how this poses a problem if you think you're being judged by God.

Anonymous said...

diana--You are skirting the REAL ISSUES.

Dad29 says he opposes sodomy, yet he enables anony posters to who openly call for it against another human being.

Condoning such behavior equates to sin. Period. There is no grey area.


"Are you a liberal who doesn't follow Church tenets yourself?"

No, I am a Christian who is calling out unChristian behavior.


"I would worry more about following Church teachings more faithfully myself instead of attempting to point out another's supposed failings by allowing certain comments on their blog."

Indeed, I am concerned about myself and others abiding by the good book. It is disturbing to me that you outright refuse to admit Dad29's hypocrisy. We are not talking about enabling a poster to criticize a politician or blogger that I may support. We are talking about purposely and willingly allowing a person's comments to stand which openly call for someone to be raped.

That is sinful. And to not delete those message, or admonish that person, contributes to sin. The Christians that I know would STAND UP to that behavior.

Abrahamson may or may not be a bitch. That is irrelevant. Dad29 can say whatever he wants about Obama, unions, the United Nations, etc. But, if he is a follower of the good book, then specific actions are NOT tolerated. That is the HUMANE and GODLY thing to do.

Anonymous said...

Chris Liebenthal is not a human being.

Anonymous said...

Go back to bed, anony 4:50 a.m., and let the adults talk.